Justice Antonin Scalia: If the move w...

Justice Antonin Scalia: If the move were educational, "I'd be all for it."

There are 94 comments on the Philly.com story from Dec 10, 2012, titled Justice Antonin Scalia: If the move were educational, "I'd be all for it.". In it, Philly.com reports that:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay. Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Philly.com.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#43 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
funny, none of this deals with the law, its just a statement of how you feel about it...
it boils down to "anyone who disagrees with you is stupid" and that is a laughable tack...
See my post #42.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#44 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
ever notice murder is not prosecuted in the name of the victim, but in the name of the state?
its all harm to society...
if we as a society want to encourage natural families, gay marriage is harmful to that goal...
Totally bigoted rubbish. Equal rights laws were enacted to defend the rights of minorities. The Constitution does not define "natural families". It doesn't rely on your opinion. It is wrong and immoral to impose one's biases on others.
Don't look too closely at this country's "natural families". You might discover an underbelly of very "unnatural" behavior.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I love when people, who have no understanding of constitutional law purport to call a lifetime justice dumb...
it only proves that the left thinks ad hominem attacks ARE arguments...
What Scalia is saying is correct, does anyone really believe we get rights when 9 PEOPLE say we do?
So we just vote for show, huh?
No reason to ever amend when 9 people can DECLARE new rights?
The fact is, you guys get all huffy when you don't get your way on a particular issue, but you guys NEVER think about the big picture..
Scalia DOES and you call him names for it?!?!
Not adding new rights, just recognizing existing rights which have been unconstutionally denied all these years.

If we had amend the constitution every time just to get bigots to stop discriminating, then we'd have hundreds or thousands of amendments.

What's the next group you bigots will attempt to deny equal rights? Left-handed people? Blonds? Redheads? Blue-eyed people? Tall people? Short people? Fat people? Skinny people? 40 year olds? People with accents? Renters? Non-drivers? Bicyclists?

Why should we have to amend to constitution when it already specifically says equal rights are guaranteed to ALL. It's called ENFORCING what the constitution ALREADY says.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#46 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it has to do with conlaw!
Gays claim moral disapproval is no grounds for a law.
So you take this an APPLY IT EVENLY to other issues.
"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Is prostitution legal?
WHY NOT?
morals?
yup.
Why would the constitution even law out a framework for it to be amended if were were just supposed to let 9 people track popular opinion and invent them...
how about instead of gay marriage, you think of citizens united or some other case you where the right is one you DON'T agree with...
The obvious difference is murder by definition harms another individual, while marriage doesn't.

Of course there can be moral disapproval, but the reason WHY it is considered amoral is key. When based primarily on religious hocus-pocus it should have no relevance in civil law.
Ray

Newport, OR

#47 Dec 11, 2012
People need to stop comparing gays so-called "struggle" for "equal rights" to blacks real struggle for equal rights.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#48 Dec 11, 2012
Micky wrote:
What Scalia is suggesting is neither "pro-gay" nor "anti-gay." What he is saying is that any state is free to change its marriage laws to allow for same-sex marriage, but the federal constitution does not REQUIRE states to do it. He is absolutely right about that. Gays continue to conflate their personal desires with a constitutional right to have the state grant that desir. I don't oppose same sex marriage but I am also honest enough to undertand its not a federal constitutional right.
Then it's not a right for hetero couples either.

So bring back inter-racial marriage bans, inter-faith marriage bans, bans on blacks marrying at all, etc, etc, etc.

And you're an ignorant fool if you think the voters in Alabama or Mississippi would JUMP at the opportunity to do just that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#49 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
if we want to encourage natural families, then we do not also encourage NON-natural families...
its that simple...
Really? So we shouldn't encourage sterile heterosexuals couples to marry and/or adopt? We shouldn't encourage old people to marry?

Good to know.

I guess I can start discriminating against all sterile or infertile couples & the elderly.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#50 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
ever notice murder is not prosecuted in the name of the victim, but in the name of the state?
its all harm to society...
if we as a society want to encourage natural families, gay marriage is harmful to that goal...
B.S.

If we as a society want to encourage the young to vote, is encouraging senior citizens to vote harmful to that goal?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#51 Dec 11, 2012
Thankfully Scalia will be dead soon enough.

I just hope it's President Obama or President Hillary that gets to name his replacement on the court!

If he manages to hang on until 2017, I'd suggest President Hillary nominate former President Obama, and watch the conservatives scream bloody murder!!!!!!!!!!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#52 Dec 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Thankfully Scalia will be dead soon enough.
I just hope it's President Obama or President Hillary that gets to name his replacement on the court!
If he manages to hang on until 2017, I'd suggest President Hillary nominate former President Obama, and watch the conservatives scream bloody murder!!!!!!!!!!
Obama wouldn't take the job. He'd be too busy working for a better world.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#53 Dec 11, 2012
Ray wrote:
People need to stop comparing gays so-called "struggle" for "equal rights" to blacks real struggle for equal rights.
No we don't.

The racists opposed to equal rights for blacks are identical to the bigots opposed to equal rights for gays & lesbians.

Scratch a homophobe, expose a racist.
Pooocy

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#54 Dec 11, 2012
halito wrote:
Why is Princeton in Indiana?
it's Chief-Jeep Cherockee or Apoochi!!;) wanne beee wind talker movie or Topix analysickee;)
Pooocy

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#55 Dec 11, 2012
halito wrote:
Do they teach anatomy?
Dr. Wattason frum Nuke York, U.N.!;-00000
Pooocy

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#56 Dec 11, 2012
halito wrote:
Or the Scalia of Just Ice?
wow-Ulearn how to pooozy AZ2gethe! Just+ice=justICE!!B+4U in topix secret school!!;-000

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#57 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it has to do with conlaw!
Gays claim moral disapproval is no grounds for a law.
So you take this an APPLY IT EVENLY to other issues.
"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Is prostitution legal?
WHY NOT?
morals?
yup.
Why would the constitution even law out a framework for it to be amended if were were just supposed to let 9 people track popular opinion and invent them...
how about instead of gay marriage, you think of citizens united or some other case you where the right is one you DON'T agree with...
==========
>>>"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"<<<

You can have "moral" feelings against or for anything you want, but it does not mean "morals" should be a basis for a law against murder or any other behavior.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#58 Dec 11, 2012
Scalia is shrewd. Notice the student did not ask Scalia about morals. Scalia introdued morals as a way to get in his strawman argument about "reduction to the absurd". He went away from the law and the students question while trying to make it seem he was talking law. He diverted attention from the law to morals and tried to make it seem the student and audience were without understanding of the law.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#59 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Murder is obviously harmful.
Prostitution is harmful.
Find harm in gays marrying.
If you're unable to find viable harm then you need to step aside and let fellow Americans live their lives free of any restrictions towards fredoms they desire.
Help?
At the SC level your arguments don' t apply.
The harm to be measured is the harm to the constitution, the harm to the Republic.
Scalia was approved by the Congress and is serving ell.
His voice should be heard all the more so when the majority may disagree.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#60 Dec 11, 2012
Ray wrote:
People need to stop comparing gays so-called "struggle" for "equal rights" to blacks real struggle for equal rights.
Equal rights are equal rights moron.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#61 Dec 11, 2012
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
At the SC level your arguments don' t apply.
The harm to be measured is the harm to the constitution, the harm to the Republic.
Scalia was approved by the Congress and is serving ell.
His voice should be heard all the more so when the majority may disagree.
Riiiight.

So one man should create the rulings.

Like Hitler.

And specifically how does gay marriage harm the Constitution (capitalize it next time out of respect asswipe)??

Specifically how does it harm the Republic?

Because I see no harm. If anything else gay marriage bolsters the Constitution in that it demonstrates ALL American citizens will hold a full set of liberties providing those liberties don't induce harm.

And guess what dumbfuck....I have yet to see a viable harm attached to gays marrying.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#62 Dec 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to call you one, you ARE one...
just like you are a FRAUD with no self control...reality is a biatch!
but thanks for playing...
Yep. That was cogent. Cogent like 3rd grader. Cogent like Pee Wee Herman. Cogent like a fake lawyer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 22 min neighbor 2,574
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Wondering 13,273
News MassResistance Warns America Against Homosexual... 3 hr Surg 43
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 3 hr Surg 417
News This "Christian" thinks a secret "gay Nazi regi... 4 hr Stumped 20
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 57,623
News Amid Egypt's anti-gay crackdown, gay dating app... 7 hr Oliver 11
More from around the web